Blog Roundup

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. "The Midterm Elections: Trump's Abettors Have to Be Removed," by Peter Schwartz (Peter Schwartz):

Trump did not like how the 2020 election turned out, and tried to forcibly nullify it. What will he do about the next election whose results he does not like? He has said that his biggest regret about the 2020 election is his failure to send the National Guard to seize the voting machines. Will he rectify that failure in response to the upcoming midterm elections? Or the 2028 elections? We can't know -- but we do know that the Republicans will not defy him.

Republicans are now in thrall to Trump. They make possible his dismissal of legal constraints. The only way to neutralize Trump, then, is through a Congress controlled by Democrats. Yes, even if they are "democratic socialists." A president aided in his refusal to acknowledge the rule of law by an acquiescent Congress, is a far greater threat than legislators who want to enact socialized medicine or a ban on gasoline-powered cars.

1210 words/4 minutes

2. "The Hazard of 'The Government Knows Best'," by Jaana Woiceshyn (How to Be Profitable and Moral):

[H]uman flourishing does not mean bare economic survival and equal struggle for all. The condition of flourishing is that people are able to depend on their basic tool of survival, reason. They must be free to think, engage in any productive activity, and trade with others of their choosing, to survive and enjoy life. Thinking, producing, and trading requires freedom to choose one's work, to keep the proceedings from it and to prosper accordingly.

By limiting or abolishing that freedom -- through confiscation of property and "redistributing" it to others, trough taxation, welfare programs, and foreign aid, or through restricting trade through regulations -- a statist government undermines individuals' freedom to pursue their values and thereby their flourishing.

900 words/3 minutes

3. "'Effective Altruism' Produced the Doomers," by Harry Binswanger (Value for Value):

In today's Wall Street Journal, "The Weekend Interview" is "Why Did Technologists Become Doomers?"

It's not just the slant of the headline that's good. The interviewee, Zack Korman, is astonishing -- not just in being on the right side, not just in supplying important information about the risks of AI, but in actually showing that what caused the hysteria is a philosophy! And guess which philosophy: "effective altruism"!

920 words/3 minutes

4. "How I Solved My Writing Problems," by Jean Moroney (Thinking Directions):

In trying to follow their process, I had dropped my own judgment of whether the thing hung together logically. I was judging it based on whether I was following their procedure, not on whether it made sense to me. This is the problem that arises from focusing on rules instead of reality. In hindsight, my 15-step process, though it has a lot of merit and brings a lot of clarity, also encouraged a rule-focused approach to writing.

This was my first glimmer into the fundamental problem that has distorted my process for years.

At about the same time, I heard Peter Schwartz give a condensed overview of the writing process he taught me many years ago, and on which my writing process was based. (This was at last year's Randsday Weekend Conference, at which we'll both be speaking again in 2027.)

This time I heard him say, "You write because you have a message you want to communicate."

This sounds obvious, but it hit me like a ton of bricks.

1870 words/6 minutes

-- CAV

When Favor Sharks Circle

Dear Abby addresses a huge, boundary-crossing ask from a favor-shark. In this case, a woman's brother-in-law, who has "selflessly" performed favors for her over the years, has become angry with her because she won't accept an "offer" to become a nanny three days a week to his newborn baby.

Abby's response is pretty good:

You are not "crazy," so don't feel guilty for refusing to allow your sister and brother-in-law to push you into something with which you are not comfortable. That they would expect you to become their babysitter without first discussing it with your partner (legal or not) is somewhere between sneaky and presumptuous.

You say your relationship with your twin and her husband is "somewhat strained." Well, it appears to be that way because you sense a lack of respect from them. That is the issue you should straighten out with her. As for her hubby, he needs to understand that: 1. You are happy working with your father in the business, and 2. Removing garbage, clearing snow and dealing with mechanical issues are not remotely equivalent to devoting three days every week to taking care of a baby. [bold added]

I have been presented with similar outlandish proposals more times than you might believe in my life, including someone hoping to foist a dog on me, and a proposal made to me in all seriousness that I let a troubled young man move into my home with my young children. (Neither my "being a mentor" nor the "free child 'care'" sweetened that second deal for me.)

In such cases, including the one at Dear Abby, the proposer -- favor-shark or not -- seems simultaneously (1) oblivious to how big an ask the "favor" is to the person it is being asked of, (2) inordinately focused on the fact that the proposed recipients are "needy", and yet also (3) engaged in magical thinking as to how the proposed arrangement will work out in real life.

(I suspect that this is just another example of altruism functioning as a mental kill switch. Why should someone who possesses something of value factor in to how it is used? How could something so "noble" as a human sacrifice fail to make everything magically work out?)

It's happened enough that I eventually came up with a succinct answer that I think even many people who have not given much thought to the underlying philosophical issues can understand: That is the kind of commitment I owe only to someone I have brought into the world or married. (And yes, that goes for adopting a dog!)

Abby is right that the favors being sharked aren't the equivalent to the "repayment" being demanded, but the issue is deeper than that. As Ayn Rand put it:

Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None -- except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don't, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs. [bold added]

The favor-sharking is an attempt to pretend that the mark has entered a voluntary relationship when that is not the case, and the earlier link about that practice has a couple of suggestions about how to deal with it.

-- CAV

Not a Good Look for Ramaswamy

Vivek Ramaswamy, whom I once regarded as an interesting, if not creditable Republican politician for the future, has probably just blown the Ohio gubernatorial race and -- aside from any future appointments by Trump -- torpedoed his political future once and for all.

A new attack ad features the estranged mother of Democratic candidate for Ohio governor Amy Acton calling her a "liar" and defending her GOP opponent Vivek Ramaswamy. Acton's campaign and her brother denounced the ad as a "despicable low."

Acton's mother, Donna Arthur, whose husband was accused of raping Acton when she was a child, says in the spot, "It's not easy for a mother to say this, but Amy was a serious problem. She is a liar; she lies about her past."

...

[Acton's brother] said that after their stepfather, Cledith Arthur, was arrested and charged, he and Acton were removed from the Arthurs' custody and lived with their father.

"Our birth mother stayed married to Amy's rapist until he died," Stearns said. "This desperate, disgusting attack reveals exactly who Vivek Ramaswamy is at his core -- a pathetic excuse for a man who is willing to hurt anyone as long as it gets him what he wants." [bold added]

The couple fled Ohio for good when Arthur was on bail, so he never faced charges.

This episode reminds me of Clayton Williams's election-costing remark in the 1990 Texas gubernatorial race, in which he crowned a series of gaffes with a "joke" likening rape to the weather. Williams had been leading in the polls. Unlike Williams then, Ramaswamy, was already behind.

I am old enough to remember when Republicans often said that character matters in an elected official, and I agree. Even if, for the sake of argument, Acton were a "serial fabulist," as the Ramaswamy campaign insists, this was obviously not the way to address the issue if indeed there was a good one. Furthermore, if the attack was not desperate and disgusting, it certainly makes Ramaswamy look that way.

That is a bad look, and will fail to help Ramaswamy establish himself as different from the corrupt dwellers of the moral sewer that is MAGA.

I have not followed the Ohio race at all, but if Williams lost Texas with his remark, I think it will be a miracle if Ramaswamy wins Ohio now.

-- CAV

Another Warnock in Mississippi?

In the New York Times, E.J. Dionne asks, "Could Mississippi Elect Its First Black Senator Since Reconstruction?"

While Scott Colom, the candidate in question, is not a minister, the piece notes that he is quite religious, and he reminds me a bit of Raphael Warnock (D-GA), and James Talarico -- who is polling ahead of the charisma-challenged, corrupt James Paxton, whom Trump hand-picked to get rid of the quite electable incumbent, John Cornyn.

Donald Trump, aided by the spinelessness of a party that should have at least tried to keep him under control, has made what might have been unthinkable only a few years ago into a distinct possibility.

This he has achieved by (1) adopting unpopular and foolish economic policies that have hit Americans in the wallet; and (2) pandering to racists on top of demanding state legislators gerrymander their voting districts to eliminate Democratic seats.

The former will fail to motivate fiscal conservatives -- and the latter will strongly motivate traditionally Democratic constituencies -- to show up to vote.

This is doubly bad news for Republicans in Mississippi.

First, here's a taste of the position the incumbent finds herself in:

They form the core of his critique of Ms. Hyde-Smith, whom he sometimes refers to as "Cindy High Prices." With inflation a central issue everywhere, she gave him an unexpected opening when a local television interviewer asked her about the rising price of beef. She replied, "You know you have so many proteins to choose from." [bold added]

This is even less inspiring than Your daughter doesn't need 30 dolls for Christmas, coming as it does from the political party that once owned the economy as an issue.

Second, the non-Republican elephant in the room in Mississippi, demographics, can easily kick in to make the upset happen:

There is hard math behind Mr. Colom's thinking. Mississippi Democrats start with a strong base in the Black community, which represents 37 percent of the population, the largest share of any state. The longstanding rule of thumb, as Mr. Colom's pollster Margie Omero told me, is that a Democrat can win by securing high turnout among Black voters and roughly a quarter of the white vote. [bold added]

To this native Mississippian, the piece makes interesting reading, although Dionne gets one thing partly wrong:

Senator Warnock, first elected in a dramatic December runoff after President Joe Biden's 2020 victory, alluded to the not-so-behind-the-scenes battle over whether national Democrats should add Mississippi to the growing list of states in which they're investing. "Believe me when I say Mississippi has the ingredients of our win in Georgia, and then some," he said. "I'm also pushing the Democratic Party to invest more in the South. I think the Democratic Party fails to invest in the South at its own peril."

If by invest, he means, fund candidates, he's correct to cite Warnock. If he also means, send national figures there or play up progressive messaging, he's wrong. Voters in Mississippi are more socially conservative (and religious) in general, and this includes blacks. If national Democrats come in sounding like wokescolds, they will alienate many of these voters for various reasons.

It's already an uphill battle for Colom: If there is any doubt that he is anything other than a traditional Democrat, he will lose.

-- CAV

McCarthy on Trump's 'Aid and Comfort'

I completely agree with Andrew McCarthy, who writes at National Review, that Trump's likely interference with Ukraine's access to Starlink/Starshield technology and illegal lifting of economic sanctions against Russia merit immediate Congressional attention.

Not only was this ["energy ceasefire"] agreement non-existent; it was patently rigged against Ukraine. For three days Zelensky heeded Trump's warning to cease attacks on Russian refineries, but Russia continued pounding Ukraine's electrical grid and other energy infrastructure. When Zelensky cried foul, the Trump administration countered that the "energy ceasefire" only applied to oil refineries. As Trump officials knew, Ukraine has no operational oil refineries, Russia having bombed the last one four years ago; by contrast, Russia has dozens of refineries. That is, the "energy ceasefire" was insidiously designed to prevent Ukraine from conducting the kind of strikes that most deter Russian aggression, yet enable Putin's continued obliteration of the energy infrastructure Ukrainians need to survive the imminent cold season.

Now, we have what Congress -- Republicans and Democrats, together -- should regard as the last straw.

...

Coincidentally, while [Starshield] was compromised, Putin's forces conducted some of the most intensive aerial attacks against Ukrainian territory since the war began, firing 39 ballistic missiles and 128 Shahed drones, mainly at the greater Kyiv and Kharkiv areas. At least nine civilians were killed, and many others wounded. Zelensky says 26 power facilities and four oil and gas facilities were damaged. More than 600,000 people lost power, for the most part, in the capital.

According to Musk, the restrictions on Starshield had to be caused by the Defense Department "and ultimately POTUS." The government, not SpaceX, owns and controls the system. Initially (i.e., after the devastating Russian attacks), Trump officials denied that the White House had anything to do with the restrictions. As of this writing (on Thursday evening), neither the president, nor his staff, nor the Pentagon has responded to Musk's statement. Reuters, however, has reported that the order to impose the restrictions came from inside the White House. (The report, behind the paywall, relies on two U.S. government officials and one official from a Western government, none of whom is identified.) [bold added]

The Republicans are at best, only cautiously pushing back on this. They already deserve to have their heads handed to them come November and that may well come to pass: Perhaps a Democratic Congress will instead finally hold Putin's sock-puppet accountable.

-- CAV

Four Wins

A Friday Hodgepodge

Whenever possible, I list three wins at the end of each day. Here are a few from a recent review of my planner.

***

1. Contrary to how things usually work out for me, I managed to celebrate Columbus Day this year. One of the things I enjoyed was a guided tour of the Abita Springs Brewery, who craft Andygator, one of my favorite local beers.

2. I love poached eggs and my son loves hard boiled eggs. I hate guesswork and messes, so I used to buy his eggs pre-made and enjoy poached eggs only at restaurants.

Intrigued by the mention at Ask a Manager of Dash egg cookers, I looked at some reviews and bought one.

On top of being stupid simple to use, this egg cooker hits the supposedly impossible trifecta of good, cheap, and fast. What a find!

3. Back in August, I underwent an operation for the third time to relieve a painful condition that interfered with my vision.

The third time was the charm, although I will have to stay on top of an underlying condition to prevent a recurrence. That is a small price to pay for the relief, and to preserve my vision.

4. It was my father-in-law's birthday. I'd had a busy day and was at home getting ready to cook something complicated.

"Did the kids say 'Happy Birthday' to Grandpa?" my wife texted.

I already had done so myself, but was indeed about to drop the ball.

My mind briefly flashed back to yesteryear, and having to round them up, and place the call. None of that is especially difficult, but I was overwhelmed at the moment and not in the mood.

And then I remembered: My kids aren't toddlers anymore!

So I spotted my son, who was downstairs, and told him to find his sister and call Grandpa to wish him a happy birthday.

Problem solved.

-- CAV

People Will Always Talk

In addition to reminding me of a Seinfeld episode, a question at Miss Manners also helped me appreciate personal growth in an area that used to cause me unnecessary worry.

The writer is a nail salon customer who can't seem to shake the feeling that she is being talked about in the native language of the staff, and asks what to do. The nut of Judith Martin's reply is:

[Y]ou could simply acknowledge that people can talk among themselves, without eavesdroppers assuming ill will.

And even if they were gossiping about her, who cares, so long as it isn't so obvious as to be rude. It's just a business transaction.

When I was young, a similar issue came up for me right after college, and a friendly acquaintance accidentally helped me see I was making a mountain out of a molehill. We were talking about something else entirely, when he shrugged off something silly someone had said about him, saying People talk about other people all the time.

That may sound like stating the obvious, but it was a lightbulb going off for me, and helped me achieve anough psychological distance from what I was worried about to think about the issue more objectively. Soon after, the kind of scenario that caused the pedicure customer so much angst stopped bothering me.

Reputation still matters, of course, but whether to be concerned about someone speaking well or ill of you is highly context-dependent along multiple axes.

The writer admits to wanting to remain a customer, so the very low bar of being treated with a reasonable degree of courtesy seems to have been met, and she is happy with what she has paid for. I'm a little surprised she is even uncomfortable, but that wouldn't have been true of me many years ago.

-- CAV